Cont: Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p2

Status
Not open for further replies.
plague311 said:
Jesus. Obviously I hadn't made this post in the circumstance I had mentioned. Also, rumor has it they allowed her to clean up her social media during this entire thing as well. So you never really know, do you?



My argument is negligence, so her intent doesn't matter to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but will the jury see the negligence as a crime? Or will they pass the buck and decide it should be handled in a civil court? I think the posters with whom you are discussing this with are trying to show how the jurors might see it.


Somebody (in another thread) linked a story to The Atlantic and this story was in the side bar.

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/595981/water-slide/

Long story short, a kid was decapitated on a water slide and the owners were charged with "aggravated battery, aggravated endangerment of a child, interference with law enforcement, involuntary manslaughter, and second-degree murder". In Feb. of this year those charges were dropped.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/c...st-schlitterbahn-officials-have-been-dropped/

Of course, this is a corporation (not an individual) charged with murder so it was always going to be a tough sell but the defense in the Guyger trial will probably be some version of should an accident be a crime?
 
I'm sorry but I simply believe that there is no ethical defense or excuse on Earth for anyone illegally entering the apartment of an innocent strangeR and shooting them dead. No matter how tired, afraid, or disoriented the shooter may have been. That the shooter was a trained LEO just makes it more egregious. Perhaps the law, or its application by a jury, may decide differently but if so there is something horridly wrong with our legal system. If some excuse is allowed and this is considered understandable behavior for a cop in our society, then how are any of us safe?
 
Giordano said:
I'm sorry but I simply believe that there is no ethical defense or excuse on Earth for anyone illegally entering the apartment of an innocent strangeR and shooting them dead. No matter how tired, afraid, or disoriented the shooter may have been. That the shooter was a trained LEO just makes it more egregious. Perhaps the law, or its application by a jury, may decide differently but if so there is something horridly wrong with our legal system. If some excuse is allowed and this is considered understandable behavior for a cop in our society, then how are any of us safe?
Click to expand...
We're not. Remember the guy who was murdered because a malignant worm on the Internet "swatted" someone and gave the wrong address? The swatter was punished but the police officer got off scot-free. How about the baby burned when a police officer blind-tossed a flash bang grenade into a living room?

Given how often cops get away with the most egregious actions none of us should consider ourselves safe from police violence, people of color least of all.
 
Darat just stay awake for 16 hours and 1 minute then ban eveyone defending this check in this thread. Problem solved and they can't complain.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Darat just stay awake for 16 hours and 1 minute then ban eveyone defending this check in this thread. Problem solved and they can't complain.
Click to expand...
Oh, well... was gonna post this link earlier but this is as good as any to place it...

This link http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/summaries-of-current-drowsy-driving-laws.aspx describes laws that various state governments are trying to pass and/or considering regarding what they term "drowsy driving" as a serious problem which should be more harshly punished. I don't agree, of course (that more laws and harsher punishment will help alleviate the problem but that's irrelevant here), but still, it goes to show that being fatigued while driving (as at least one person here uses as a possible mitigating circumstance) does cause huge numbers of accidents and some deaths.

The reason I'm posting this now is the 16 hour part; with these proposed drowsy driving laws they all pretty much agree on 24 hours as the time-factor that's necessary to trigger these punishments -- such as treating a drowsy driver who kills someone as a felony. A relatively low-level felony, but more than a misdemeanor.

I've seen ad campaigns directly addressing driving while drowsy, even and studies have shown that 20-24 hours without sleep is the equivalent BAC of 0.08 - 0.10 (legal limit in the US is 0.08 BAC).

Anyway, I don't recall off-hand but this 16-hour number the cop claimed... is that her saying being awake for 16 hours or a 16 hour shift (which would include at least another hour awake)?

Still, that would technically be the equivalent of around a BAC of 0.04 or therabouts; still impaired, in other words.

The fatigue problem is endemic in the medical field and commercial pilots also have strict rules and regs about adequate rest between and during flights. Why not cops?

From the brief reading I've done, it doesn't seem like there are any federal laws governing sleep or rest schedules for doctors; even so, fatigue can be and is used as evidence in some medical malpractice suits and I think fatigue has been used as evidence in some criminal cases which a doctor has made a mistake that caused or contributed toward a patient's death.

So, again... I mean, I get it: the macho image of cops who are expected to handle everything; a woman trying to fit in to a traditionally male role; a feeling of "my home has been violated!"; a sudden jolt of adrenaline after a long day of stress and anxiety to top it all off...

My cynical side says that she'll walk with little to no punishment other than being fired; in fact, she'll probably fight it if she skates on the charges or at least, go into another department elsewhere.

My non-cynical faith-in-humanity side says she'll rightfully do decent time in jail and my actual hope is that, due to the lousy system in which we currently live, she gets maximum time as a warning to other cops that this **** is just. not. acceptable.

Here endeth the sermon. :)
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Police training should* be about ensuring people don't act in instinctive and unconscious ways. So if she was acting as a police officer I'd say there is even less excuse for the "fast reaction" as you describe it.

(*Granted that some police training in the states is bad.)
Click to expand...

I agree. But then there's the difference between what the training delivers and what the trainee does with the information. One thing I don't believe has been discussed or disclosed is how she handled similar situations in the past. In other police shootings it has sometimes come to light that the officer involved has had a history of being trigger happy.
 
Darat said:
She is going to be trying to use fatigue as part of her defence https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-police-officer-amber-guygers-defense-tactics-11735279
Click to expand...


I can clarify that a little more. If they're having Czeisler testify, it's very likely they're not going to be talking just about how many hours she was awake, but her work and rest-activity schedules for the previous week or more, and how that could have put her circadian rhythms awry.

Let's assume you have typical work hours. You get up at 6 AM; 16 hours later it's 10 PM. You might be getting sleepy by then but you won't be impaired. But imagine that you'd been working the night shift for the previous two weeks, and just changed over the previous day. If your circadian rhythms had adjusted to that, even if you'd had a day or two off before the change-over, getting up at 6 AM to work a day shift would still be like sleeping in until 2 PM (probably very restless sleep), and sixteen hours later when it's 10 PM your brain is performing as if it's 4 AM.

That wouldn't be a very typical case, though. What's more typical is for cops to work a rotating shift where every week, they change to a shift eight hours earlier than the one before. Circadian rhythms adjust more slowly to schedule changes in that direction (which is why it's easier to sleep in on weekends, and harder to get up early Monday morning after sleeping in on a weekend). For most people it takes more than a week to adjust. So the effect of that kind of shift schedule is to have circadian rhythms completely and perpetually out of synch with your rest-activity cycle. On any given day you might be getting up when your body thinks it's midnight, and trying to get to sleep when your body thinks it's four in the afternoon.

There is research that links these phenomena to performance deficits, episodes of attention lapses, other altered mental states, industrial accidents, and prevalence of chronic disease and shortened life spans for the affected workers. Czeisler regards poor work scheduling (designed for cost savings without regard for human circadian physiology) as a public health issue. I doubt he's in it because he personally thinks Guyger shouldn't bear any blame, nor to make a few quick bucks. His cause, for decades, has been calling attention to the bad consequences of bad work schedules.

I'm not claiming any of this exonerates Guyger. Just that there's likely going to be more to the fatigue defense argument than "awake for a whole 16 hours OMG."

And to let people know that in most places in the U.S., the cop who pulls you over is likely on his sixth cup of coffee because he couldn't get to sleep for more than two hours the night before. Adjust your expectations for the encounter accordingly.
 
Myriad said:
I can clarify that a little more. If they're having Czeisler testify, it's very likely they're not going to be talking just about how many hours she was awake, but her work and rest-activity schedules for the previous week or more, and how that could have put her circadian rhythms awry.

Let's assume you have typical work hours. You get up at 6 AM; 16 hours later it's 10 PM. You might be getting sleepy by then but you won't be impaired. But imagine that you'd been working the night shift for the previous two weeks, and just changed over the previous day. If your circadian rhythms had adjusted to that, even if you'd had a day or two off before the change-over, getting up at 6 AM to work a day shift would still be like sleeping in until 2 PM (probably very restless sleep), and sixteen hours later when it's 10 PM your brain is performing as if it's 4 AM.

That wouldn't be a very typical case, though. What's more typical is for cops to work a rotating shift where every week, they change to a shift eight hours earlier than the one before. Circadian rhythms adjust more slowly to schedule changes in that direction (which is why it's easier to sleep in on weekends, and harder to get up early Monday morning after sleeping in on a weekend). For most people it takes more than a week to adjust. So the effect of that kind of shift schedule is to have circadian rhythms completely and perpetually out of synch with your rest-activity cycle. On any given day you might be getting up when your body thinks it's midnight, and trying to get to sleep when your body thinks it's four in the afternoon.

There is research that links these phenomena to performance deficits, episodes of attention lapses, other altered mental states, industrial accidents, and prevalence of chronic disease and shortened life spans for the affected workers. Czeisler regards poor work scheduling (designed for cost savings without regard for human circadian physiology) as a public health issue. I doubt he's in it because he personally thinks Guyger shouldn't bear any blame, nor to make a few quick bucks. His cause, for decades, has been calling attention to the bad consequences of bad work schedules.

I'm not claiming any of this exonerates Guyger. Just that there's likely going to be more to the fatigue defense argument than "awake for a whole 16 hours OMG."

And to let people know that in most places in the U.S., the cop who pulls you over is likely on his sixth cup of coffee because he couldn't get to sleep for more than two hours the night before. Adjust your expectations for the encounter accordingly.
Click to expand...

They'll have to be careful during jury selection, then. Any mom or dad on the jury will be howling with laughter at what the defense tries to frame as fatigue or sleep disruption.
 
An early assessment by a conservative columnist in the National Review:

First, police sources are reportedly indicating that Guyger may actually try to raise the fact that Jean didn’t obey her commands as a defense. It’s not a defense. The moment she opened the door to an apartment that wasn’t her own, she wasn’t operating as a police officer clothed with the authority of the law. She was instead a criminal. She was breaking into another person’s home. She was an armed home invader, and the person clothed with the authority of law to defend himself was Botham Shem Jean.
Click to expand...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...-shooting-police-must-face-impartial-justice/
 
Blue Mountain said:
I agree. But then there's the difference between what the training delivers and what the trainee does with the information. One thing I don't believe has been discussed or disclosed is how she handled similar situations in the past. In other police shootings it has sometimes come to light that the officer involved has had a history of being trigger happy.
Click to expand...


Since you asked:
Dallas police shot a man who wrestled away an officer's Taser during a struggle in Pleasant Grove on Friday morning, police said.
.....
Officer Amber Guyger, who shot the suspect, was placed on restricted duty, as is the department's practice, Blankenbaker said. The special investigations unit will take over.
Click to expand...
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/cri...gate-officer-involved-shooting-pleasant-grove

She might have been justified. On the other hand, she was the only one of several cops at the scene who felt a need to open fire.
 
Distracted1 said:
Absolutely.
Operating a motor vehicle has a certain degree of attention built in as a kind of "implied consent".
Walking to my front door, not so much.
Click to expand...

I ask again, if Guyger was a nurse, a bartender, a taxi driver or anyone other than a cop who entered someone else's home "by mistake" and shot them dead, would "oh, I was so tired!" be considered a shred of justification for one single second?
 
Bob001 said:
I ask again, if Guyger was a nurse, a bartender, a taxi driver or anyone other than a cop who entered someone else's home "by mistake" and shot them dead, would "oh, I was so tired!" be considered a shred of justification for one single second?
Click to expand...


How about this?

If Botham Jean had opened the door to Guyger's apartment by mistake and shot her dead, would this thread even exist? Or would he already be in prison?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom